The Proclamation

 You guys. I'm starting to have more time now that my youngest is in kindergarten and my oldest is on a mission in California. (Well I would have more time, but I started painting the interior trim when my girls got Covid in August, and I'm still working on it! Once that is done, I should have a whole 1 hour and 45 minutes some days when my youngest is in kindergarten.) Maybe I'll write more. Not that anyone reads blogs anymore, haha. But, the last while I've been listening to podcasts, lots of them. Sadly, I haven't written down what I've learned like I used to when I read stuff, so it will be difficult to go back and find what I learned. However, I wanted to jot down one really great podcast my husband recommended after he listened to it. I'd listened to a lot of the Follow Him podcasts with John Bytheway and Hank Smith, but I'd missed the on on The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Dec 10-11, parts 1-2, episode 51 with Dr. Jenet Erickson. She touched on gender, the importance of fathers, preside, the sexual revolution, and so much more. It was so good, and worth taking notes on, even though I didn't!

I think I've finally figured out cleaning!

About 6 years ago we moved to a different house.  I think I've finally just figured out a cleaning routine for it!  I had the old house all figured out and timed, but that was when I had just 2 kids, and not 4 who make much bigger messes.  I always feel like I'm ALWAYS cleaning, but there are ALWAYS more messes, and I can never keep up.

I'm all for having kids help with family work, but I've had such a hard time implementing it.  I've also been kind of anti-Saturday chores because they just get in the way of other plans.  However, I've been converted, and Saturday chores are the answers to all my cleaning problems!

If you're like me, you want the house cleaned the way you want it.  You don't want a sloppy job on the mirrors and windows, you want every spot off the counter, etc., BUT, you also don't want to micromanage your kids and make them feel bad about the work they are doing and trying so hard to do right.

I also like the house clean for Sunday, which necessitates cleaning on Saturday.  But, once the weekend is over, the house is a disaster on Monday.  So, I've started cleaning the house during the week like I've always done the way I want it, then I have the kids somewhat re-do it on Saturday to their ability.  That means it's kind of getting done twice!

During the week, I get the counters and mirrors to my standards, then on Saturday, they do the best they can with them and it's good enough for Sunday.  During the week, I vacuum, but, yes, it needs to be done more than once (really every day, but that's not going to happen at this house), so I let the kids also do it Saturday.  Win-win! 

Because I'm trying to keep the basics under control like laundry, dishes*, bathrooms, kitchen floor, it doesn't leave a lot of time for baseboards and walls and light switch cover plates and chairs and kitchen table.  Bam!  Kid Saturday jobs!  Now I may have done those once a year before (I know, gross), but if the kids are wiping a couple things down each week, even if they don't do a great job, those things will surface to the top of the list again in a few weeks.

My oldest kids are getting roughly 3 jobs a Saturday, and the younger one, one or two, so they really don't complain.  If they do, I remind them that we're a team and if they want to go out and do activities, which take time, then I need their help around the house.  Now, if someone has a Saturday activity, like our 10-year old did last week, I just made up the list early and let him do his jobs on Friday.  Really, Friday jobs would be fine rather than Saturday, I'm just not quite pulled together with my list by then, though.

I asked some ladies when life starts to get easier a little over a year ago.  They said when your oldest is 9.  My oldest was about 9 by then, and I do think it started getting easier.  However, now that he's 10, it's getting even better.  For me, I don't think having the kids help this much before age 9 would have really helped me.  It probably would have made me more frustrated.

My friend recently posted this cleaning expectation chart on Facebook, that I thought was good.  Of course we all have our own variations, but it's something to start from.

There was recently a post about how one mom keeps her house clean.  Honestly, it made me feel pretty lousy because some of her monthly stuff was my yearly stuff; her weekly stuff was my monthly stuff; and some of her stuff wasn't even on my list.  I thought it was good in theory, and it reminded me of things I need to also do, but I can only do so much, and that's okay.

*I would have the kids help more with the dishes, but we have these super-sensitive cabinets that the finish is coming off of, and I know it will only be worse if I have little helpers.  Gotta figure that one out.

Covenant Motherhood by Stephanie Dibb Sorensen

While on vacation I finished a book. I couldn't believe it.  I think I need to go on more vacations so I can finish more books.  The book was Covenant Motherhood by Stephanie Dibb Sorensen. Even cooler than finishing the book, I got to go to her Friday Education Week class, meet her, AND have dinner with her and a few others afterward. 

In her book, Stephanie identifies so many parallels between the roles of mothers and the roles of Christ. It's so easy to think that what we are doing as mothers is mundane and unimportant, but Stephanie makes you feel so good and useful! The titles of her chapters will give you an idea of where she goes with this: 

* Chapter 1: Motherhood Testifies of Christ 

* Chapters 2-9: Jesus Christ Creates, Teaches, Succors, Provides, Cleanses, Defends and Protects, Loves and Sacrifices, Forgives and Shares Burdens, and Saves 

* Chapters 10: Grace and the Covenant 

* Chapter 11: (My favorite) The Eternal Influence of Covenant Motherhood 

On page 4, Stephanie shares a quote by Neal A. Maxwell about God's work being one eternal round, including his "continuous redemption for His children." Yes, we're always messing up and God is always having to work with us and forgive us. I can imagine that could be tedious. I also thought of temple work, and how it can be so repetitive, yet, we don't give up on it, nor does God because it is so important. 

Speaking of the temple, on page 9, I loved this: "We know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created a world where God's children could grow. As part of this divine and creative partnership, mothers also create a world where their children live and grow. This mother-made world consists of home and family. . . . A mother is the temple matron in her own home, doing all she can to make it a place filled with the Spirit of God. . . ." Doesn't that feel good? 

Throughout the book, I enjoyed how I related to Stephanie in regards to wondering if she's cut out for motherhood. On page 55, she states: "I also thought people chose to be moms because they loved all of that kid-related stuff, like playdates at the park and making your own baby food ann baking cookies for the PTA. Now that I'm all grown up, I realize that probably only about 1.7 percent of the population is well equipped to automatically be a great mother. The rest of us just kind of muddle through it somehow. . . ." What a great discovery. I often look at other moms thinking they wanted this chasing kids, and changing diapers, what's wrong with me? If I could only want this it would be so much easer. But, Stephanie's probably onto something --- more of us are muddling through this than we think! 

In the last chapter, which I mentioned was my favorite, Stephanie poses several questions. I'll tell you the questions, but I won't tell you the answers. 

 Q: Many women are educated, talented, and extremely capable. Isn't it a waste of their skills to spend time with children when they could make a bigger difference in the public sphere? When so many options are available, doesn't it make sense to outsource the more menial tasks of childcare so that women can do bigger things? 

 Q: No one seems to notice the work I do, which makes it feel like it doesn't matter. I wonder if there would be more rewards or recognition in other pursuits. 

 Q: Sometimes, even within the gospel, it feels like mothers with young children aren't able to accomplish all that they are supposed to do. When my children are so young and needy, how can I possibly do family history work, be a missionary, attend the temple regularly, and be an active contributor to the missions of the Church? 

 Q: I try so hard to do what's right and be a good mom, but it's so difficult to measure any success. My children don't seem to make much progress with all of the things I'm trying to teach them, and I often feel weary. Am I really making an important difference in their lives? 

Q: Some people seem to leave their mark on history in big ways, and my contribution is so small and unrecognizable. Does Heavenly Father really value what I'm doing, and does it add value to our society? 

If you are struggling with feeling value in motherhood, Covenant Motherhood will help you realize how important, beautiful, and fulfilling it actually is. 

What's the Greatest Gift You Can Give Someone?

The other day a question popped into my mind: What is the greatest gift you can give someone?  I realized it was motherhood (or fatherhood, or just parenting for that matter).  If you bear the child, that is huge, but that life-long loving, caring, and nurturing that comes along with it is life changing!

Weeks before I thought of the above question I was thinking about our difficult (understatement) baby and how (this is terrible) we could just give her up for adoption or into foster care, but then I realized if we did that, someone would probably beat her.  Because I love her so much, I would never want that to happen, so I decided we should keep her, and she actually has it quite good.  It is great that she has parents to coach her through life---what a wonderful gift we can give her, even if she is quite a nuisance.

Can I just ramble here and tell you two funny things?  During her first year, I took a picture of her every month for her month-by-month frame.  When it was complete, my husband looked at it and said, "That is such a misrepresentation of her!  You got the one time every month when she was actually happy!"  Yesterday, he took her and our son to some batting cages.  Some girls came over to awe at her and later my husband said it kind of ticked him off because she was being so good, and they didn't know what she was really like.  That's the baby for you.

Also yesterday while we were juggling kids and schedules, it struck me that I need to decide how I'm going to share my life with my children.  I need to stop thinking about sending them away for this and that, but think about how we are a unit that influences and relies on each other.

I think I spent all my growing up years dreaming about Prince Charming and spending my life with HIM, but I spent very little time thinking about how to share my life with our future children.  It's not like we have servants who rush them off once the are born.  They are a part of my life, and I need to include them in the game plan just as much as I planned to have my husband in it.  They're not EVER going to go away.  I'm sure many of you have already figured this out, but it's a new perspective to selfish me.

This Is Water

You've probably already seen this, but I wanted to save it.

It's not about ME; it's about the choices we make every day in reaction to everything around us---about even the monotony.

Now give me the motherhood version.

The disintegrating family and a book with ideas to combat it

Here are a couple things I saw today on the disintegrating family.

First off, did you see the WSJ's "America's Baby Bust" from the 2nd?  It reminded me a bit of Demographic Winter and population decline and the potential effects on society.

America's fertility rate began falling almost as soon as the nation was founded. In 1800, the average white American woman had seven children. (The first reliable data on black fertility begin in the 1850s.) Since then, our fertility rate has floated consistently downward, with only one major moment of increase—the baby boom. In 1940, America's fertility rate was already skirting the replacement level, but after the war it jumped and remained elevated for a generation. Then, beginning in 1970, it began to sink like a stone.

There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.

. . .Conservatives like to think that if we could just provide the right tax incentives for childbearing, then Americans might go back to having children the way they did 40 years ago. Liberals like to think that if we would just be more like France—offer state-run day care and other programs so women wouldn't have to choose between working and motherhood—it would solve the problem. But the evidence suggests that neither path offers more than marginal gains.

As I read, I, too, wondered what could make people want to have more children.  My initial thought was that we're too far gone for that.  It's so easy not to have children; we're too selfish; we don't even get married anymore!  (So why would we have children??)  Our world is generally not even family-friendly.  We worship the individual.

If we're going to reverse this decline [in population growth], we'll need to reintroduce into American culture the notion that human flourishing ranges wider and deeper than calculations of mere happiness.

I've been thinking so much about happiness lately and have been wanting to write a post on it.  I'm even trying to have the mindset that life is NOT about happiness, but is about WORK.  I think I'm actually more content when I set my expectation lower regarding personal satisfaction/happiness.

I also found this one interesting, too:

Higher education dampens fertility in all sorts of ways. It delays marriage, incurs debt, increases the opportunity costs of childbearing and significantly increases the expense of raising a child. If you doubt that the economics of the university system are broken, consider this: Since 1960, the real cost of goods in nearly every other sector of American life has dropped. Meanwhile, the real cost of college has increased by more than 1,000%.
If college were another industry, everyone would be campaigning for reform.

OUCH!

I also read today, the intro to Fearless Parenting about actually raising our kids to become mature, responsible adults.  Maybe I can read the book someday!

It’s not that as parents we don’t try. We hover over our kids twenty four hours a
day, we protect our kids from every imaginable harm, we cry with our kids when
they’re hurting, we provide our kids with the best of everything, we run interference
for our kids when they’re in trouble, we do science fair projects for our kids
when they go to bed and we throw ticker-tape parades for them when they graduate
from second grade. We’re doing everything for our kids except the one key
thing we should have been doing all along: prepare them for adulthood.

. . .Instead of teaching them how to struggle, we eliminate struggle from their
lives. Instead of teaching them how to persevere, we tell them not to try so hard.
Instead of teaching them to do without, we teach them all they have to do is ask.
Instead of teaching them to be adventurous we make them risk adverse. Instead
of teaching them how to succeed, we teach them to be happy because we’ve succeeded.

. . .We can teach them to value honor and integrity over “cool” and “sexy.”  

With the way things our with our society, our government, our economy, sometimes I wish we could just go colonize a new country and start over, only there's no where to go.  I wonder what we're in for as no one can seem to come up with any good plan to fix "things," and then even if they do come up with a plan, no one can agree on it.

Purpose in Parenting

I saw three things today that reminded me of the purpose of a parent.

1.  I loved this video that's been floating around for the last few days that emphasizes a father's role in his family.  It reminded me of the movie, Courageous.  What I want to see now is a similar video on motherhood to get me all weepy and happy.


2.

3.  My friend wrote a Facebook status about chopping walnuts.  I'd love to just copy it in here, but I don't have her permission, so I'll just summarize.  As she chopped, she stressed over all she had to do and what she might be doing wrong.  Finally, she took a breath and decided just to focus on what she was doing.  She noticed one walnut always jumping out of the way of her knife and "just going with the flow."  As she slowed down, she remembered she actually enjoyed cooking!  She noticed other little things around the house and then wondered how often she misses out on special times because she's worrying about other things.  She wondered about missing connections with her kids and other "blissful moments."  She realized she needs to be more like that walnut and "go with the flow" and try not "to fix and force things," but to "be still" and "be quiet" so she can "find the joy and contentment [she] seek[s] in places [she'd] never expect."  Loved it.

A Parent's Guide

A while back, we finished reading A Parent's Guide, the LDS Church's 1985 guidebook on how to talk to your kids about the body and sex.  Although it was so old, I'd never heard about it until maybe year ago.  At first I figured it would be a nice, well-balanced approach to human development, then after hearing so much negativity online toward so many things that the LDS Church does, I worried that it might have some non-PC stuff in it, but when I read it, I was pleasantly surprised and learned some good things.  (See, don't trust what you read online. Don't even trust me.  Go find out for yourself.)

I thought I'd jot down a few quotes I liked (I admit, it ends up being waaaay more than a few).

Intimacy does not occur in a vacuum, isolated from other human relationships, from values, or from our perceptions of ourselves and others. It is only one part—although a very important part—of our relationships with others (5).

Amen to that.  I think we're trained in our culture to think that intimacy/sex is this focal point of our lives, but it's just a part of a whole picture.

***

If we are to emulate the love of Christ, we must have the same objective: “I do what I do because I love you, not because I have any selfish gain in mind or any anticipation that credit shall come to me.

This one reminded me of a story my husband told me from when he was in an institute class.  In some dating discussion, another student commented that if he took a girl on a date and bought her dinner, he expected something in return at the end of the date, namely, a kiss.  Really?  Entitlement, hmmm.  What if she didn't like him?  Why is this all about him and his desires?  Isn't dating about getting to know another person?

***

While many of the responsibilities of men and women are the same, the Lord has assigned to his sons the responsibilities of holding the priesthood, of providing for their families, and of presiding in righteousness over them. The Lord has assigned to his daughters the responsibilities of helping to create earthly bodies for his spirit children, of nurturing and caring for those children, and of sustaining and counseling with her husband (8).

The predecessor to The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

***

Help your young children understand that being a man or a woman is part of a pattern of life established and approved by their eternal Creator. You teach your children to be proud of being a boy or a girl primarily by being secure and happy yourself with your masculinity or femininity and by demonstrating love for your spouse. As a child interacts with parents who are secure in these ways, he learns that men and women have a natural and complementary affection for each other and that each parent contributes in unique ways to his or her comfort and security. The child learns that both masculinity and femininity have value and develops a sense of happiness and security in being a boy or a girl.

The following ideas may help you understand the weighty assignments the Lord has given to his sons. He has given them the priesthood, which is his power given to men to act in his name. But this power is not given to men merely to give them authority. On the contrary, the Lord makes clear that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41). The purpose of having the priesthood in the home is to bring the powers of heaven into the lives of the family members. Through his priesthood, the father is able to receive revelation, inspiration, and understanding in behalf of his family. He can perform sacred ordinances for his family and bless them in many ways he could not if he did not hold the priesthood. He has been given this power so that he can bless his family (8).

It goes on to say that a woman's greatest assignment is to give "mortal tabernacles to the spirit children of God," which complements, as quoted above, men's responsibility to "bring the powers of heaven into the lives of the family members." This reminds me of and fits well with Kels's post recently.

***

A mother, when without a husband, presides. In the absence of a father, she is the head of the family. She must make every effort to magnify her role as mother and head of the home and fulfill her responsibility to teach her children (11).

I've known some women who have lost husbands who were unsure what their leadership role was if there wasn't a father/priesthood holder in the home.  One wondered if she should allow her teenage-priesthood-holding son to lead the family.  That didn't make sense to me, so I was glad to see right there, that no, she's the mom, she's the head of the family.

***

“As important as our many programs and organizational efforts are, these should not supplant the home but support the home” (address delivered at Regional Representatives’ seminar, 1 Oct. 1970) (15).

I've heard a lot of argument on whether or not YM/YW activities are really mandatory.  I know I was strongly urged to go as a youth, and I admit, I did pass (unrighteous) judgment on others who were not there.  But, bam, here you have it, these activities should "support the home."  So if you have a family event that is more important, then, it's more important.

***

Teach them that their gender influences their goals and that, depending upon their gender, their goals are to become effective fathers or mothers. . . .

In homes where the mother feels good about her role as a family builder, she will make the child feel well accepted. The mother and child are constant companions [birth to 3 years]. Mother is a coach and tutor, involved in the numberless trials, errors, and successes of this developmental period. The father, on the other hand, comes home from his employment and tends to interrupt the routine. Often he interrupts with play, sometimes with duties, and on occasion with discipline. . . . .

“Keep the mother of your home at the ‘cross roads’ of the home. There is a great danger today of homes breaking down because of allurements to entice mothers to neglect their being at home as the family are coming or going from the home. Now I recognize the necessity of some mothers being required to earn sustenance for their family. I am recognizing that, but [we all] should take care lest [we] fail to lend all aid possible to permit the mother of small children to be with them, if possible, in planning the nature of work or the schedule of time” (“Woman’s Glorious Purpose,” Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1968, pp. 12–13) (20).

I know that those paragraphs could potentially offend some, but nevertheless, I'm still trying to do them for the most part.  I think my parents very much lived this -- even down to when dad comes home, he may interrupt with discipline.  My mom did what she could, but my dad was definitely more of the discipliner.  In our home, I think it's pretty even.

***

Teach your children to accept and understand that basic differences between men and women are complementary in nature. To understand their role identity, children need to understand that each gender completes the purpose of the other’s creation (23).

Love it.  What a great starting point in teaching our body differences.

***

Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire. (See D&C 4.)

Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment. Some females are gifted organizers, some are not. Some males are gifted teachers, some are not. There are all manner of character traits for boys and girls, men and women, to develop if they are to become righteous in all they do, in both their intent and performance (25).

I love that the booklet points out these traits and gifts that apply to both men and women.  So often we label one sex one way and the other, another.  I need this reminder.  I fall into the stereotyping, too.

***

You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes. But you should respect the divinely mandated roles special to the respective sexes. . . .

Girls ought to be taught the arts and sciences of housekeeping, domestic finances, sewing, and cooking. Boys need to learn home repair, career preparation, and the protection of women. Both girls and boys should know how to take care of themselves and how to help each other. By example and by discussion, both sexes need to learn about being male or female, which, in summary, means becoming husbands and fathers or wives and mothers, here or hereafter.

There are, of course, realities to face also. Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary. In this imperfect world there are the widowed and divorced and those without the opportunity to marry. Their lives need to be as secure and complete as anyone else’s. But for all of the children of God, this life is primarily a probationary existence designed to prepare them for the eternal roles of husband and father, wife and mother. . . .

Sometimes we focus on how boys and girls should be taught differently, but I deliberately emphasized the things that we're taught to teach both sexes.  I need to learn from this one.  I admit that sometimes I've let my son slide in his table-setting duties because he's a boy; but, I'm more persistent in getting my daughter to set the table.  I've felt guilty about that (my mother would have never allowed for such behavior), so I've kind of stopped pushing anyone to set the table.  I just set the dishes on the table and they eventually get distributed.

Parents, by aspiring too much outside the home or through too much self-focused achievement, risk teaching their children that the roles of father and mother are not very desirable-desirable—or less so than the attainment of material goods, the honors of men, or even educational diplomas. . . . (26)  

I absolutely loved that last one.  I have the tendency to long for that grass that's greener on the other side, but I don't want to give my kids the wrong impression, either.

Mothers work along with daughters to bake bread, sew, and plan family menus and budgets. Mothers perform compassionate services with their daughters as companions. And mothers and daughters engage in various mutually enjoyable activities. They sing, play musical instruments, compose music, write poems, and develop artistic talents in all their varieties with their daughters.

Fathers work with sons in repairing things around the house, maintaining the yard or car, and planning the budget. Fathers invite sons to help them perform service and let them observe priesthood blessings. And fathers hike or play ball or engage in other mutually satisfying activities with their sons.

Of course, mothers also teach sons and fathers teach their daughters. If a girl is intrigued with a saw and hammer, the father should help her become proficient. If a boy enjoys cooking, the mother should teach him to be a good cook. Parents should organize all these experiences around the child’s future role as either a mother or a father and should help their children develop their gifts to the highest degree, whatever those gifts may be (29).

***

The future ability to adhere to eternal roles depends on how well the child learns to be Christlike with others. A child should learn to be courteous to all people, affectionate with many, and intimate with a special few, all the while being true and reliable. Future social and emotional security depends on how clearly the child learns a gender role. True role definitions teach the girl that she is a daughter of God, working toward the roles of wife and mother here or hereafter. The boy learns that he is a son of God, working toward the roles of husband and father here or hereafter. These gender-based roles provide the perspective for successful future sexual intimacy (33).

I don't know that I fully understood this one, but it sounded good.

***

Parents can mistakenly attribute adult characteristics to adolescents who look like adults but are largely children. They need more time and experience before being expected to act and think completely as adults.

You can say that again.  So very often we think teens are more mature, but they're just big kids who are starting to understand all this!

***

Ideally, you should use the first eight to twelve years of a child’s life to prepare him for his teenage years. If you wait until adolescence to teach your children about the changes of puberty and about intimate relationships, you may not be able to influence them as easily. Children often retain their basic character traits through their teenage years. The kind, self-respecting child usually becomes a kind, self-respecting, and sexually well-adjusted young adult. The self-focused, unkind, self-indulgent child will often express these character traits in a sexual fashion during the teen years.

If this is true, I'm really excited for my 9 year old to be a teen!  This also boosts me in my resolve to be at home while my kids are young -- when I can have so much influence.

***

A girl who enjoys self-respect based upon development of a talent and esteem for her various womanly roles will be more inclined to appreciate spiritual truths. She will be less likely to desperately seek the attentions of lustful boys or accept the viewpoint of those who oppose marriage and the family (37).

We need our girls to have that self-respect!  (Here's even a recent article on the influence moms can have in helping their daughters not feel like they have to be sexy.)

***

Set the example of virtuous behavior in every aspect of your life. Obey the traffic laws, live within your income, keep your house and yard neat and attractive, be moderate in dress and in consumption of material goods, serve faithfully in Church callings, vote in each election, give regular service in Church welfare efforts, read the scriptures daily, hold family prayer, speak courteously, be modestly but openly affectionate, and be chaste in dress and language. Have daily prayers, give blessings to your children, fast, and bear your testimony (39).

I think that's a great way to live for anyone!

***

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union. . . . (49)

Honestly, I didn't expect to see that in writing anywhere.  Anything these days revolves around sex drive, so I'd love to have some backup data on this.  I like that it emphasizes again the emotional wholeness of a relationship, not just the part about sex.

Well, this ended up being a HUGE post, but it's fun to remember my thoughts and review this booklet. I can see why I procrastinated writing about it.  Definitely worth a read, though.

Parenting Taboos

My friend Jamie shared this Ted Talk entitled "Let's talk parenting taboos" with the creators of Babble.

It was pretty good. Their goal is to share some of the realities of parenting so people won't be left disappointed once they become parents. Four of the things we generally don't talk about are:

1. You may not have automatic love for your babies.
2. It's lonely to have a baby. 67% of women said they were most lonely when their kids were between the ages of 0-5.   In one country, a few months before a woman has a baby, she goes to live with her mother up to several months after the baby is born to combat this loneliness.  In our country where that doesn't typically happen, we should probably be watching out for/visiting each other more when there's a new baby.  (Thank goodness for Visiting Teachers -- it's a start!)
3.   It's okay to talk about miscarriage.
4. Average happiness declines when you have kids, but you have lots of happy peaks as you raise those kids!

I think it's good to talk about these things, but in my case, knowing at least some of those things beforehand made it harder to make the choice to have kids.  I'm just so practical. :-z

Parenting Tip: Show them a good time

Recently, we took a family vacation.  In some ways I've struggled with the last several vacations because, basically, I didn't get one.  As the mother, you know, it's just not all that relaxing.  You're still taking care of everyone and probably sleeping even worse than normal considering you're not at home in your own beds.  When you get home, you still feel like you need a vacation.

Anyway, on this last vacation, I considered beforehand that if I didn't think this was a vacation about ME and MY relaxation, but about sharing experiences with my kids and creating memories, then maybe the whole thing won't end up an exhausting disappointment.

You know what?  It worked!  Now, don't ask me why I didn't figure this out about 9 years ago.

(Sometimes I do wonder why I didn't catch this concept earlier.  When I did my student teaching in Western Samoa, I longed to share those experiences with my family (parents, brothers, sister).  Now I just need to remember that I'm here to share the joys of this life with our kids.)

New Normal

I find it interesting that so often I'm thinking, "I can't wait until things get back to normal."  In a recent Facebook discussion, I learned that things most definitely won't get back to the old normal, but they will get to a new normal.  What a concept.  I'm still trying to figure it out.

Sometimes I get caught up in thinking I should be able to get everything done; I shouldn't be interrupted; I should be able to leave the house without making special arrangements; I should be able to get up at 6 a.m. when my husband does; the house should stay clean; I should be able to walk enough that I can eat whatever I want; I should be able to exercise, too; I should be able to ponder and meditate and be all spiritual.  Sure, these are things that once were, but I need to get used to the new normal -- that I'm going to be really tired a lot of the time; that I won't get much accomplished; that meals just won't be as nice as they once were; that I can't really leave the house; that maybe these last 5-10 pounds just won't go away; that I'm really going to have to fight for my spirituality, etc.

I'm not so sure I want to accept the new normal, but it's reality. 

Sometimes I feel like I'm in a nightmare:  I'm on the ground in a hurricane (the hurricane of crying babies, sleepless nights, messy house, body aches, and interruptions), and there is a helicopter above me that has let down a rope to rescue me. Sometimes I get a handle on the  rope, sometimes I can only smack it, and other times it's just out of reach.  When I try and grab the rope to get away, it gets yanked away from me because the helicopter is blown in the gusts or the mud slips from under me and I fall. Sometimes I feel like it's my kids in the helicopter trying to rescue me, but at the same time they're laughing at me conspiring to wake up at different times throughout the night.  It's odd that the kids are there to rescue me, yet they're the ones causing my troubles.

I think that's where the adjustment needs to come in.  I don't think the kids are really the problem; it's my expectation of normal.  The kids really are wonderful, and I forget that I'm here to teach them, and all those things I WANT are just going to have to fit in later or some other way.

I've been doing some research on an ancestor lately (center, front).  She was born in 1839.  She married into polygamy in her teens (her older sister was the first wife).  After the older sister had her 5th baby, she died leaving all the kids with my ancestor.  My ancestor then had 3 of her own kids (the boy and girl on the left in the picture), but then her oldest died as well as one of her sister's girls.  Soon after that, her husband died in his mid-30s.  My ancestor was only about 25!  She was a widow with 6 kids!  Do you think life was hard?  I can't even imagine.  I shouldn't even be complaining about my life.  Heck.  I didn't even have my first kid until I was 27!

What I've learned, though, was that even though her life was REALLY, REALLY hard for a time, it did get better.  She didn't have helicopter-hurricane nightmares, she actually faced hunger, isolation, and loss somewhat regularly.  However, the kids grew up, she learned, she served, she traveled, and she wasn't so financially pressed.  When she died in her late 80's, life was pretty good, I'd guess. 

<pep talk> So, I've got to keep my eye on the bigger picture.  I need to adjust to the new normal -- the normal that is always changing with each paragraph in my chapter of raising young children.  Life will change; it won't go back to what it once was, but it can become normal.</pep talk>

Remembering Samoa

I did my student teaching in Western Samoa 14 years ago.  While I was there I kinda liked it, but kinda didn't.  The humidity was gross, the bugs were gross; I found plenty to complain about.  When I hopped on the plane to go home, I had this overwhelming feeling of sadness regarding how much I was really going to miss that place and that I should have appreciated that experience more.

The other day I realized I hope I'm not treating motherhood the same way.  I kinda like it, but it's kinda hard.  I'm really tired.  I'm really tired of cleaning.  I'm really tired of correcting.  I'm really tired of hearing "Mom."

My friend Polly once told me that she tried to live life without regrets.  I realized that if I keep kinda not liking some of this motherhood stuff, that when it's over, I'm really going to regret it just like I regret not enjoying Samoa as much as I should/could have while I was there.  So, here's to enjoying this time of life more, living without regrets, and remembering I'll miss it when this phase is over.

Lightening up!

Here's something that has helped me lighten up as a parent -- cross posted at Particles of Faith:

Recently, my husband took our son on our ward father's and son's camp out.  My husband spent some good time chatting with a former mission president around the campfire.  They touched on the topic of sending missionaries home (yes, sometimes LDS missionaries get sent home).  My husband and I have been guilty of taking a letter-of-the-law approach at times and would probably say in this situation, "Well, if a young man isn't behaving as he should on his mission, or if he wasn't worthy to go, then teach him his lesson: send him home."

This loving, kind, former mission president taught us something.  He said that when working with one of these young men, he'd handle it this way:  You can repent and take care of matters while on the mission and return home honorably, or we can send you home now where you'll face the embarrassment and shame of coming home early, and it will ruin your life and probably your involvement with the church (I'm sure he made it sound much nicer than that). Rather than making these young men miserable, he wanted to help them be successful. What a charitable approach.

I realized that I need to do better and give people the benefit of the doubt and to be more compassionate.  It's not my job to lay down the law; it's my job to show love and mercy as the Savior did and make life better for others.  I can leave the judging up to our Father in Heaven.

Not only does this help me be less judgmental of others, but it also, for some reason, helps me lighten up with raising my children.  I don't have to be too strict.  I don't have to make them be little adults.  They can be kids and have fun, and I can have fun with them and be a guide when they struggle just like that former mission president was with his struggling missionaries.

Between Parent and Child

If my friend Andrea reads this post, she'll drop her jaw! I borrowed her book, Between Parent and Child, by Haim G. Ginott, a really, really long time ago, and finished it today.  Her new looking book, definitely looks gently used from me carrying it around for the last many, many months.

Anyway, it wasn't my favorite parenting book, but I still got some good things out of it, so I thought I'd jot down a few notes.

The original book came out in 1965, but was updated in 2003, so it was kind of funny reading advice that was given back in the 60s.  For example, there were lots of examples of REALLY MEAN things parents might say to children.  I seriously couldn't even imagine saying things like that to a child!  I couldn't imagine my parents saying things like that to me, either -- and I came over a decade later from the first printing!  I'm sure people do say really mean things to kids, but I also like to hope that overall we've gotten nicer to children.

This book also seemed like the predecessor to Love and Logic, which is still currently my favorite parenting book.  Both books encourage a parent to empathize with a child -- maybe not agree with them, but to try and understand their feelings.  We've tried to do that with our kids, and I think it's a good thing.

I think one reason I had a hard time getting into the book was that the first part focuses on interpreting what your children say and then repeating it back to them.  I thought it was a good idea, so I started trying it.  I can't say it worked even once!  I kept trying to interpret what my kids were saying and they'd say, "No, that's not what I meant."  I finally gave up on that tactic and moved on in the book.

I really liked Appendix A at the end of the book regarding "How Children Can Be Helped."  The author outlines all sorts of problems kids might have, and identifies what is normal developmental behavior and what is over the top -- i.e. where kids may benefit from some therapy.  There's a section regarding "Fearful Children," and let's just say I may seriously consider help in this category for our 5 year old!  Our 8 year old has grown out of his fears, but there was about a 9 month period when he was 3/4 when he would not go to bed without one of us in the room with him, and if he woke up, it was game over.  He also developed a stuttering problem, which we got help for, but now I understand there was probably an underlying problem.  Luckily, so far, our 3rd child seems to be not so fearful as the first two.  Knock on wood.

Kind of along those lines, too, the book had some really good information on jealously between children.  I wonder if our kids' fear problems somewhat stemmed from a new sibling.  Each of our older kids developed some sort of problem about 6 months after having a new baby.  I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation.  The book suggested letting kids draw a picture of the sibling and cut it up or something, rather than hurt the baby.  My kids never indicated they didn't like the new baby, but maybe it was part of their problems.

There was an entire chapter on how to talk to your kids about sex, which I appreciated, but I was also bugged by the common attitude that we should just expect our kids to have sex -- and we shouldn't freak out when we find out they do.  Being a religious person, I still think we need to set the expectation to be chaste, but if our kids mess up, we shouldn't freak out (outwardly!!), but we need to be there to help them get things corrected. 

I also liked (p. 109) that the author said a shy child may be helped by having outgoing friends.  My 5 year old has a group of little friends and they are ALL shy!  I can't help but wonder if they just rub off on one another!  We've put her in a drama class with louder kids, and I do hope they'll influence her to be a little more outgoing.

I really liked, "Efficiency is the enemy of infancy" (p 169).  I am so guilty of pushing efficiency in my kids (more-so as a first-time parent, luckily I've learned a little).  There's a time and a place for efficiency, but kids need time to develop and grow at their own rate.

So I got some good things out of the book, but there were some things I'd just never try, but it was worth the read even if it took me so long.

Nature or Nurture

I quite enjoyed this latest post from NotMolly entitled, Nature or Nurture?  Particularly:

People have debated the merits of nature versus nurture in the development of traits and characteristics for quite a long time. In this situation, I’d argue that the whole negative ball of wax is a cumulative effect of nurture: how we train ourselves, and how we train those around us. . . . Small cutting remarks grow into a habit of cruelty in thought and deed. . . .

When a child is “treated” to a decade and a half of a parent stating, right in front of that tiny personage, how Mum or Daddy “can’t WAIT til the kids are back in school,” or “how great it was before kids” or “we’re turning his room into a sewing room the weekend he graduates, so he’d better have something planned!”, how on earth is that supposed to do anything but alienate the affection that ought to exist between parent and child? Would we, as reasonable adults, ever deign to waste our emotions on people who treated us this way?

When interaction with a child, time with a child, is routinely passed over in favor of “mature” pursuits, “me” time, and other semi-selfish desires, what message does that give to a formative character? What worth must they assume they have, if they are never “worth” our time and effort?

None of this is to say that a parent ought to devote every single breath of every single day catering a child; quite the opposite! Children need not be catered to at all: they deserve nurturing and mentoring, not catering. Catering connotes “serving up on a platter, satisfying every whim”, which leads to an aggrandizement of self versus the control of self and channeling of passions in productive ways. . . .

To Have or Have Not Children

Elder Neil Anderson gave an inspiring talk on mothering/parenting yesterday.  He talked about how the the choice to have children is between a husband, a wife, and God.  He also stressed that to have children is a commandment.  I think we often forget that second part about it being a commandment, but it should probably be one of the first things we consider.  We need to do a better job as parents at teaching young people that children are a responsibility of marriage.  We need to teach them how to understand, accept, and prepare for that.

I've surely mentioned on this blog that my husband and I weren't too excited about having kids, but after waiting several years, we determined it was time to be obedient and give it a try.  It was actually 13 months of trying, then we miscarried at 11 weeks.  What a lesson that was, and it gave us a deeper appreciation for children.  After much thought and learning, now our attitude is to welcome children into our family, one at a time (well, unless there are two!).  We won't put a cap on it until we "Know" we're done -- whether by feelings or the evidence of my body and mental state being finished, or whatever other circumstances (perhaps health of other family members or even money).  Raising children is not easy, and it's often not fun, but it is a commandment.  I have faith that it will all be worth it someday.  The Eyre's had some good counsel on this topic (Having another child: Questions Couples Can Consider, Des. News, April 1, 2011).

I'm afraid that sometimes people get so overwhelmed by so many little children so fast that they give up on the thought that they could ever have any more, so they claim to be "done."  Why not wait until the kids are a little older to decide that?  When they are little, it is soooooo hard!  It doesn't seem to be the best time to be making such big decisions.

I also believe that people jump to the conclusion that they will only have x number of children.  I feel that making decisions like that is like trying to decide on a first date if you are going to marry the person you're out with.  You just have to take it one date at a time, just like you have to take it one child at a time and not make decisions you're not ready to make.

Anderson quoted part of this from desiringGod (thanks to some fb friends for finding the quote):

The truth is that years ago, before this generation of mothers was even born, our society decided where children rank in the list of important things. When abortion was legalized, we wrote it into law.

Children rank way below college. Below world travel for sure. Below the ability to go out at night at your leisure. Below honing your body at the gym. Below any job you may have or hope to get. In fact, children rate below your desire to sit around and pick your toes, if that is what you want to do. Below everything. Children are the last thing you should ever spend your time doing.

If you grew up in this culture, it is very hard to get a biblical perspective on motherhood, to think like a free Christian woman about your life, your children. How much have we listened to partial truths and half lies? Do we believe that we want children because there is some biological urge, or the phantom “baby itch”? Are we really in this because of cute little clothes and photo opportunities? Is motherhood a rock-bottom job for those who can’t do more, or those who are satisfied with drudgery? If so, what were we thinking?

Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for.

Christian mothers carry their children in hostile territory. When you are in public with them, you are standing with, and defending, the objects of cultural dislike. You are publicly testifying that you value what God values, and that you refuse to value what the world values. You stand with the defenseless and in front of the needy. You represent everything that our culture hates, because you represent laying down your life for another—and laying down your life for another represents the gospel.

The Economist's Guide to Parenting

My husband Evan has been telling me about this Freakonomics podcast regarding the influence of parents on children.  He could have posted this himself, but he was doing the dishes (here's basically what he put on G+):

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/freakonomics_specials/freakonomics_specials060211.mp3
or
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/17/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-economists-guide-to-parenting/

Amazing freakanomics podcast sharing the research on the influence of parents.

The current research shows that parents have very little influence (other than passing on blessed or unblessed genes) on a child's educational attainment and on how much money the child will earn. Reading to your child doesn't help, taking them to museums doesn't help, once you've donated your genes you can't do much else. It does show that a parent can have a significant influence on whether your child smokes, is a heavy drinker, treats others with kindness and how happy your child is. Children with loving nurturing parents will be happier. There also seems to be evidence that type-A parenting (engaging children in as many enriching activities as possible) can have a negative effect as it won't help with education/career and it's likely to increase the child's stress and therefore unhappiness.




in sum:

Parenting can have a profound influence on a child's happiness and helping them avoid moral pitfalls.

Parenting has almost no influence on a child's educational or career attainments ($), that's dictated almost entirely by genes.

If you want to read to you children and take them to the museum go for it but if it's not a fun nurturing experience you may be doing more harm than good.

---

I'll have to listen to it.

Women, Education, and Careers

I've recently read a few articles on women, education, and careers. The first article was "Giving Women a Voice Without Sacrificing Faith or Family: The Changes Needed to Create an Egalitarian Society" by Kaylie Clark. The second was What If “Plan A” Doesn’t Work? helping Female students navigate an uncertain life course by Casey Hurley. The Third was The College Rip-off by Rich Lowry.

Let me start with article #2.  Hurley began by comparing the life path of hypothetical LDS twin college students, male and female.  She suggested a more direct path for the male:  

Righteous LDS young men are given clear goals: get an education, serve a mission, get married, work to provide for your family. A young man can safely make a single generalized career plan: prepare to work full-time in a position that will support a family until retirement. Brother may change jobs from time to time, but the general plan will remain intact.

For the female she pointed out a less direct plan:

Sister is likely to perceive her duties as: get as much education as you can; go on a mission if you feel so inspired; get married if a worthy man asks; stay home with your children if you get married and are able to have children; provide for your family if your husband dies, is disabled, or leaves you; provide for yourself if you stay single or somehow lose your husband; help provide for your family if your husband gets laid off or your family encounters other difficult circumstances...and so on.

There are no certainties on the list.

After reading that, I honestly thought, "Oh that is so not fair when you look at it that way!  We women totally get the short end of the deal!"  But, it kind of is the way it is because we're trying to live what we believe is God's Plan for the family.  I have to remember that I had 27 years for myself before having children, the least I can do is dedicate a couple decades to child-rearing.  As I lamented to my husband, he was wise enough to remind me that many young men do sacrifice, too.  Some may give up dreams of becoming an artist to be an accountant so they can possibly better provide for a family.  Some may give up a permanent video game career in their parents' basement to become responsible adults.  So, I don't know if you can say women make all the sacrifices to follow a man, because some men give up dreams, too.

The balance of the article provides some great ideas in helping young women become aware of education/career choices, outside the familiar female education/career choices, that can work while caring for a family.  I thought the idea was brilliant and wished there would have been information like that available to me in the mid-1990s. 

For example, my experience as the faculty adviser of the pre-law society indicates few of our female students consider law as a possible field of study. . . .  Law can be a great career choice for women. . . . Law is one of a number of career paths that offers the kind of flexibility and options most of our female students are probably looking for. But have we shown them where to find these options?

I began to wonder, if I had to do it again, what would I do differently?  I have a teaching certificate, and am thankful for that, but I chose education because I believed it was the best choice in case my future husband were unemployed, underemployed, if we separated, or if he died.  I also liked the my education major because it wasn't heavy on the math and science, and since I was on scholarship, my chances of keeping it were better if I took easier classes (yes, I just admitted that!).  If I knew I was to never marry, I'm pretty sure I would not have chosen education, but I don't know what I would have done.  Law, no.  Computer Science, no.  International Studies, maybe.  Epidemiology, maybe.  If I had to do it again now, under my current circumstances, I'd probably fall immediately in to the professional secretary category, just because of past experience.  Philanthropy and history would be fun, but there's not much money in that.

So, I loved the concept presented and hope that young women are given more ideas on careers that are flexible, especially when motherhood, particularly single-motherhood, is involved.

The first article by Clark addressed the issue of how to make the workplace more friendly toward parents.  After thinking about myself in a position of having to go to work to support our family, I thought how crucial a more family-friendly work place is.

She suggested a few ideas, most I liked, a couple I didn't.

• Breastfeeding/pumping rooms.
• Affirmative action - can't say I'm a big fan.  I'm all for taking the best person for a position whether it be a male or a female (or whatever race, etc.).  If both candidates are equally qualified, and if you don't have many women at a company already, take the female so you can get that female perspective, if you want it.  If you just don't get qualified women for positions of influence, maybe it's time to create a specific women's issues position where the women's voice can be heard -- even if the woman doesn't have as many degrees, or as much experience as the men on the board.  (Sounds a little like the Relief Society:  The LDS Church is a predominantly male-led organization in the highest outward rankings, but there are some key positions where women serve, and they share the female perspective.)
• Results-Only Work Environment (not based on hours worked, just results)
• Proportional benefits and equal per hour pay to part-time workers
• Paid maternity/parental leave - can't say I'm a big fan of this either, mainly because who's going to pay for it?  The company?  The government/taxpayers?  I do like sick-leave plans that can be used for other members of a person's family (i.e. husband stay home when wife has a baby).

Clark also suggested a paradigm shift in money, family values, and masculinity, which I appreciated:  "Two values specifically must be examined, the first being the value our society places on money and the value we place as a society on the centrality of the family."  Sometimes I wonder, though, if we've gone too far away from family values?  Can we re-claim that value?  Many people don't even want to get married anymore.  Additionally, regarding masculinity and homemaking she quoted "Elder Dallin H. Oaks said 'homemaking is not just baking bread or cleaning a house.  Homemaking is to make the environment necessary to nurture our children toward eternal life, which is our responsibility as parents.  And that homemaking is as much for fathers as it is for mothers.'"

The main point, though, of Clark's article was to help women not feel bad about pursuing their passions.  She admires women who's passion it is to be a mother (an example), but she wants to open the doors for women who have other dreams, too.  In order to do this, in addition to the above ideas, she leans toward making men's and women's roles more the same.  This is where I was a bit less favorable of the article.  This could possibly be because we come from different backgrounds.  She said her "entire life plan was to be a stay-at-home-mom" until she found a major she enjoyed; whereas,  I saw myself also as a stay-at-home-mom, well someday, but wasn't super excited about it; it sounded hard. I felt that staying home (if I could) was what I should be doing and would be best for my children (although, maybe that lack of excitement was because I wouldn't let myself get too excited about something that I'd soon have to give up?  I'll have to think about that some more.  Maybe Clark and I aren't so different after all!).  I feel now that my primary purpose is to raise my children (with my husband), and in the down-times I'll pursue my dreams; I just won't be able to do full-force.  To make it easier for the time being, I've tried to make mothering my passion.

I guess I just have a case of cognitive dissonance when I understand the doctrine of the family, yet also understand the need to fulfill one's passions, and see reasons to do so, and also see women who have made outstanding contributions to society outside of their homes. It just feels weird for me to say that there are times when able-bodied married women should not have children -- probably because that is not "my plan" (and isn't it a tendency to push one's own plan on others?)  For me, right now, the default for child bearing is on (yet I'm not the type to go for 12 children, and I think Heavenly Father understands why and is okay with that).  This all is why we have personal revelation and why we cannot judge others.

To back up the idea of women pursuing their aspirations, she shared:

“The Family: a Proclamation to the World” is the central doctrinal document on the family for the LDS church, and it states that “the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children” (The First Presidency, Para. 1). It states that “husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children” (The First Presidency, Para. 6).It is clear from this paragraph that an equally shared duty of both the man and the woman is the welfare and proper upbringing of their children.

...Elder M. Russell Ballard illustrated this compatibility when he said, ““Is a woman’s value dependent exclusively upon her role as a wife and mother?  The answer is simple and obvious: No . . . Every righteous man and woman has a significant role to play in the onward march of the kingdom of God” (Ballard, 2001). According to Elder Ballard, women have value outside of and work to do in addition to bearing children. President Gordon B. Hinckley himself said “The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it… women today are afforded the same opportunity to study for science, for the professions, and for every other facet of human knowledge. . . You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part.”

I like the quotes, they're empowering. However, Clark skipped the part in "The Family" that states:  "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me that encourages, when possible, mothers primarily to nurture, and fathers to primarily protect and provide.  I don't know why we are encouraged to have these divided roles.  Perhaps it's because those who wrote the document are patriarchal and old fashioned.  Perhaps there is actually something inherent in the male makeup and the female makeup that makes one more suited for his or her designated role?  Could women actually be more suited for childcare?  Could it be that their brains really are more wired for multitasking, something that is required all the time while raising children?  We definitely know there is a physical connection between mothers, fetuses, lactation, and infancy.  There are just some nurturing things a father is physically unable to do.  Could men be encouraged to protect and provide because they are larger and because they possibly tend to think more compartmentally, which can help them stay better focused in their work?  I don't mean to sound belligerent, but we just don't know why we are encouraged to have these specific roles; perhaps someday we will completely find out.  I believe that if I do my best to fulfill my role, though, that my life will be happier and simpler than it might be otherwise.


Another part Clark left out of her article from "The Family" that she actually could use to back up her idea of equality was, "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.  Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."  This statement tells me that it is okay adjust for "other circumstances" in addition to "disability" and "death."  It also clearly states (a part we tend to breeze over) that spouses are "obligated to help one another as equal partners."  This tells me that we help each other in our separate roles that we've been asked to fulfill; there is overlap.  We are a family team playing different positions.  

In regards to nurturing, Clark cites one study:  "men can nurture just as well as women, psychological studies testing the assumption that women are better nurturers yields ambiguous findings due to cultural influences, so the argument that women are naturally better equipped for the work in the home is weak with little scientific backing."  Maybe so, but there are other findings that at least make me ask more questions.

So I like Clark's general ideas of changing societal attitudes toward family, and I like the suggestions for modifying the work-place, but I felt there was quite the elimination of our God-given roles and duties.  When I was engaged and first married, I was all for equally sharing all the household duties (how degrading that I would have to do them when my husband was completely capable of helping out; I was not his slave), but as time went on, and especially once we had children, because my husband went away to work, it just made sense for me to do the traditional female jobs.  I've said for some time now that "if it goes against the family, the LDS Church will not support it."  Because Clark's ideas do support the family, I suppose they could work, but I wonder if the risk would be too much overlap and headbutting between husband and wife as they try and be too much the same?  Maybe it's not about reasoning, though.


At the end of Clark's article she shares what she would like to do with her passions:  "I can build schools for little girls and little boys, where I can help the underprivileged find their voice, where I can work with governments and businesses to bring these same opportunities to others. And I will do this with a man who shares my vision. . . ."  I liked that; I can relate to that.  I minored in International Development in college.  I had a crush on a guy who'd traveled the world helping people.  I fantasized about marrying him, founding some NGO, and traveling the globe.  I felt, and still believe, this is something that can be done with your own family at your side.  

Well, so much for that third article, I'm not making this post any longer.

No dad, no problem? No way!

Cheryl pointed me to Fatherless America? A third of children now live without dad; incredible stats.

Alarmed by growing evidence of the importance of fatherhood, President Barack Obama, who was raised by a single mother, has forcefully pleaded with fathers to step up throughout his presidency.

 "In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence — both in my life and in the lives of others," Obama wrote in a 2009 Father's Day piece in Parade Magazine. "I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference."

  ...While the divorce rate has dropped in recent years, it's not an indication that more families are staying together. Rather, Hawkins said, more people are choosing not to get married in the first place. 

For many years, marriage and children "were a packaged deal," he said, "and society was pretty good at enforcing that with strong cultural norms." Things started shifting during the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s.

...The move away from marriage is a result of a bigger shift in American values that Hawkins calls a loss of "child centeredness." At one time, society expected adults to make decisions based largely on what was best for the children.

"Marriage isn't about kids anymore," he said. "It's about my satisfaction as an adult, my emotional well-being, my personal development."

A large percentage of today's young moms and dads are children of divorce and, therefore, wary of marriage. For many, Hawkins said, the logical solution is cohabitation. In 1960, there were only about 197,000 unmarried couples raising children together, the U.S. Census Bureau reported. In 2009, there were more than 2.5 million.

"Most of these couples are together when the baby comes and they have high hopes for staying that way," Hawkins said. "Unfortunately, only a small percentage are able to hold that together and solidify that relationship. It's even easier to leave your kid when you haven't got a legal commitment holding you there."

In a five-year study following 5,000 children, the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C., found 80 percent of fathers provide support to mothers during pregnancy and more than 70 percent visit their children at the hospital. At the time of birth, a vast majority indicated they wanted to help raise their child.

Five years down the road, however, only 35 percent of unmarried couples had gotten married. About 40 percent of unmarried mothers had already broken up with their child's father and entered into at least one new partnership. Fourteen percent had a child with a new partner.

"Most fathers care about their children," said Victor Nelson, a marriage and family therapist from Logan. "They've given up on making things work with the mother, but most want to figure out some sort of solution for their kids."

But even if fathers keep in touch after a breakup, children suffer...

...A study by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services found only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families where the biological mother and father are married to each other. Thirty-three percent come from families where the parents have divorced. Forty-four percent have parents who were never married. The University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University both found young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families — even when other factors like race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.

"Something about not having a father in the picture seems to make at least certain types of boys more likely to engage in aggressive violent behavior..."

Despite socioeconomic status, however, just having a father at home makes a child more likely to succeed at school, according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.

Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to run away from home and commit suicide, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eighty-five percent of children with behavioral disorders don't have a father at home.

...For girls, living in a father-absent home has physical consequences. Without a father, said Erin Holmes, an assistant professor in BYU's School of Family Life, girls tend to go through puberty sooner. A recent study by three U.S. universities found the earlier a father left, the greater risk a girl was at for getting pregnant as a teen.

Fatherlessness is also associated with eating disorders and depression, Holmes said.

...Being a father is more than just being male and showing up, said Holmes, who studies the effects of father involvement. Children who have poor relationships with their fathers or even those whose fathers are away from home working for extensive periods of time are at risk for some of the same problems as a child without a father...

"Sometimes fathers aren't in homes because they weren't doing good fathering," Holmes said. "We're not just saying, 'Let's get dads back in homes.' We're saying, 'Let's get dads doing good fathering.' "